dothackfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Dothack Wiki:Community Portal
Community Portal Revamp Because I never got a chance to get around to this with the relaunch project. What I want for the Community Portal is for it to be a central hub for editors & contributors. Basically, once you click to it, you'll have immediate access to any place you need to go, and any tools to do what you want to do. I also think there should probably be a formal To Do list on it. Some wikis have Community Portals that are more involved, like what ours is now. However, I've been actively trying to shift most of the roles the Community Portal plays towards the BBS. Looking at Wikipedia's CP, I noticed it has a more static look (though clearly it's being updated). Obviously, this wiki doesn't have nearly as much content or the community size to do exactly what Wikipedia's CP has, but I think it has a lot of good ideas going on. At the very least, I'd like a bulletin board with high-priority information.--OtakuD50 07:20, March 3, 2010 (UTC) Novels and Manga when it comes to the ISBN number, and there is only one, it fails to mention if it's english or japanese. just wondering if it can be specified. ALso i've been wonderinfg why the characters of .hack lik arent menrged with their original version. 16:06, March 23, 2010 (UTC) "general fixing" another thing i find difficult is, the way we have to discuss about genreal fixing. the main page is merely for talking about the style of the page? it should be used for genreal discussion, 16:09, March 23, 2010 (UTC) :That's what the BBS is for.--OtakuD50 18:13, March 23, 2010 (UTC ::Sorry but making a section for genreal fixing is kind of stupid, that's why the main page should be there for. makes you think if .hack//wiki is really meant for looking up general info and just how everything is styled. a page dedicated for how the main page will look is really dumb 19:15, March 23, 2010 (UTC) :::Well we think your face is dumb, too, but we're not complaining. If you don't like how we do things, get some respect (by giving respect), start your own Wiki and awe us to submission, or keep it to yourself. If you want something done, go through the proper channels first or no one will give a crap. Besides, the page was made to test a new layout and isn't it lovely!--Falcon At 23:26, March 23, 2010 (UTC) :::I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you referring to This page? I specifically wrote "This page is specifically for discussions relating to the design of that page, or .hack//Wiki as a whole." This means that while I prefer that it be used to discuss changes we could make to the main page's design, and I did create the BBS forums to distribute & organize discussion topics, I knew that that wouldn't stop everyone, so the main talk page can ALSO be used to address something "general" to the Wiki. You see, prior to my project, we had a bunch of pages that all served roughly the same purpose, but it was annoying going back and forth between them and deciding what needed to be addressed. Not to mention, those pages got HUUUUUGE. Now, the Wiki discussion areas are more defined and organized, and the Community Portal serves a true purpose now.--OtakuD50 23:37, March 23, 2010 (UTC) that IP user is me, and also, my face has nothing to do with this. but i suppose this could be a more personal matter for you falcon at. i'm simply saying the format in this not the best way to do it. if it got HUUUUGE. all you had to do is archive. And maybe add extra rules. general discussion would be formatting how the pages are, or multiple pages. if it were something specific, than it wouldnt be in the general discussion. The problem is that the discussion for general fixing is more reserved into one spot. IP users would have to be dedicated to the wiki in order to make discussions go smootherXXXth form 18:27, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :If you don't like the way we do things, leave. Anyways, I would love it if IP users were dedicated to the Wiki. It would force them to make an account and be accountable for their edits. I would rather have a few dedicated editors rather than a whole mess of anonymous users randomly editing crap into articles. Hell, if I could lock all the pages from anonymous edits, I would do so, but it's impossible in Wikia. Personally I disagree with the "anyone can edit" ethos. Years of experience have shown me anonymous users hurt more than help. So if you don't like how we do things here, then leave. Kulaguy 19:57, March 25, 2010 (UTC) ::i'm not a push over, i know the deal of wiki. problem is wikia made up of there own style. there's no difference in an expirience IP user who wanders than a dedicated user who still messes up daily. i'm simply saying that this could be much more simpler than you all think it. no i'm not leaving jsut because i dont like the rules. i feel compeltely dedicated to rules. that's why i use wikipedia, this is much more loose and i dont need references for this place. still, the idea of this wikia is to make up your own style, rather a proer structured one''' (forgot to say i wasnt very fond of that idea)XXXth form 20:23, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :::What the hell are you even getting at? All I'm getting from your rant is that style is better than structure. What exactly constitutes "style" applied to a wiki, and how is it superior to structure? Are you seriously still complaining about the lack of places to post general discussion? There's the talk page for the .hack//Wiki main page, and there's the Ask Piros! BBS. You say making a specific area to discuss general fixing is stupid? THEN WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS IT? There's two places, and now both places tell you exactly where we PREFER you take certain discussions. This is a wiki, I can't FORCE you to take a discussion somewhere (after all, look at this very discussion), but for the sake of those of us who care to actually address those issues, I'd prefer it if people post their issues in the appropriate place. I've spent hours looking through multiple wikias and studying their community areas. More than half the ones I looked at don't even have a Community Portal. Most of them have large, active communities that discuss things in a forum or blog or similar type of area. And guess what? IT WORKS. The .hack//Wiki doesn't have as large or as active a community, which is why we were able to work with the old style for a long time, but I'm trying my best to accomodate a bigger, better community and provide useful tools to the community we do have. How does any of this make things worse? Less articles and less areas of discussion does not necessarily make things simple. It's like a messy room. I have a VERY messy room, but I have a "system" that allows me to find exactly what I'm looking for, even though the average person just sees a jumbled chaos. Does that mean it's better for everyone to just develop a system for their room? No. A neat, clean, organized room with labels all over the place is more functional for visitors, and it doesn't prevent the regular owner from figuring out where everything goes, even if it goes against their sense of style.--OtakuD50 21:40, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :::No, i'm saying structure is better than style. the difference is that, your comparing a wiki to your personal room. i'm saying we structure this much more organized. PRoblem is, there's a rule you added in, that says all general discussion have to be in these areas. that's what throws me off. it would be great if genreal discussion was just done at the main page instead of creating a place for general discussion. it's not my fault the rules arent well written. if you said "general discussion can still be held here" then it wouldnt be much of a problem. but i'm simply going by the rules you have here.XXXth form 21:46, March 25, 2010 (UTC) i'm basically saying the same, except without too many labels.XXXth form 21:48, March 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::Ho, damn kid, are you asking for it. You said what you THOUGHT was better. Members disagreed. You continued and pissed everyone off. Stop insisting. It's over. --cruncher3019 22:18, March 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::XXXXth Form, you're an idiot. The Community Portal specifically states where to put discussions. How the FUCK is putting all the discussions into one page organized? How the FUCK is this organized, huh? You know what's organized? Separating each discussing into it's own fucking page. You claim to want organization, but your propositions will do the opposite of what you want. Kulaguy 22:31, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :"oh no some hot-blooded guy, thinks he can find a better way to do things, lets jsut ignore him just because we think he's conceted!" no seriously, there is a better way to doing things. there is organized, and there is over detailing things. we dont need to seperate "everything". make the place straight forward. there is such a thing of over-organizing to the point where you get lost in your own labels, then it wouldn't be "organized". I'm thinking of something simpler. Cruncher, your not even trying to debate, your just aiming it all at me, same for kaluguy. can you guys at least here me out????????? seriously.XXXth form 22:40, March 25, 2010 (UTC) ::It's not an overly complicated system. Basically just post in the appropriate forum. I even wrote in both the discussion page for the main page, and in the Community Portal discussion area, that if you still aren't sure where to post, you can use those areas. So you really have more areas to address general things than what I said. As for the whole "hear me out" routine, that's what I've been saying. You don't get to the freakin' point. I already told you to show me an example and prove yourself but you prefer to just say all this fluff about being misunderstood. MAKE US UNDERSTAND. Show a specific proposition, don't just say "it could be done better." I never said the system was perfect. I gave the community ample time to chime in and tell me how it could be done better before I implemented the new stuff. If you have a better idea, SHOW IT.--OtakuD50 22:52, March 25, 2010 (UTC) ::otaku, this will be the last time i defend myself, but yes, like i said, we could just simply have everything in general in the main wiki discussion page. What wikipedia does in this place is create projects, i'm sure you know of these, specific task force to help out a certain group. for here it would simply be the task force of publication, and animation, and GAmes. those three each focus on a certain scope. anything that is more general than those three specific group can enter in the main page. so anything related to OVA/anime/CGI film, would go into discussion in the animation task force, the other for publicatiosn such as novels, graphic novels, and manga, that would fall in the Publication task force. any video/card game would fall in that category. simple as that. the main page would be for far more genral stuff such as reorganizing the entire system, or something more related to the wiki page itself or if there's a bug, than that would fall in the main page. is this specific enough?XXXth form 23:00, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :::Except that's what we're already doing (nothing is stopping anyone from using the main wiki talk page for that purpose), while at the same time providing a forum to better organize those issues in a manner that allow us to easily find those discussions. Is there anything the current system does that limits what you're saying should be done?--OtakuD50 23:06, March 25, 2010 (UTC) Maybe you can mention that in the front page then, this discussion probably could've been avoided. i think it's the title, of these task force that throw me off.XXXth form 23:08, March 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Let me get this straight. You TELL us that the way we do things is disorganized and then TELL us that you have a way that is DEFINITELY better. We then respond with: No, we tried that, turned out to be disorganized. We then show that you are proving our point with this disorganized article. I hope you realize that, with the whole wiki against you, you clearly aren't going top get your way. WE HAVE HEARD YOUR ARGUMENT. IT WAS CONSIDERED! Guess what: it isn't liked it's been tried and it sucks. But rather than just accepting that you simply respond with "HAY, IMMA JUST NOT LISTEN TO THAT AND CONTINUE INSISTING MY WAY IS RIGHT!" What the fuck is that? And what's your excuse for that? Because we insult you? because you're being fucking insulted you ignore the fucking argument? Are you ten? Are you a fucking kid. Do you know what a wiki is, what dot hack is? How did you even find this place, because based on your arguments, I'm surprised you can use a fucking computer. You piss Otaku off, Falcon off, Kula off, and, the most important, you piss me off. (Because I'm fantastic). No one gives two shits about your ideas and it has been stated multiple times why? You know what that means. It isn't going to change. I haven't seen a moron like you in LOOOOOOOOOONG TIME, and god is it refreshing to run into this shit again (Nostalgia, motherfucker). Again, YOU'RE way is the one that leads to more disorganization, we've explained why and it hasn't just been shoved off without a thought because IT'S BEEN TRIED. (oh lawd, repeating myself). Let it go, nub. --cruncher3019 03:25, March 26, 2010 (UTC) :::I fail to see how him pissing you off is more important than him pissing me off. How dare you think you're more important than I am! Kulaguy 04:05, March 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::Oh Kula, you know I place you on a higher level. I was merely clumping members together for this one example and your name just slipped in. --cruncher3019 04:21, March 26, 2010 (UTC) i'm not a "nub". but yeah, looking back on it now, still needs more organizing. problem is, you refer to these as "forums", which allows much more loose organization. Maybe better names, to these task force. Also you should allow discussion in the main page, and no i'm not saying you should allow someone to post, because clearly you said they are, but i mean allow people to discuss on there, so if one puts a discussion there that's about general .hack stuff that needs to be taken care of, you would discuss with them, not saying stuff like "Go to BBS to talk about it". I still dont think these places are needed, one or two at least. i wanted to say "more or less" but i typed in a rush. still, although it's organized, it's not well fitted, if you know what i mean. One thing otaku mentioned was that the main reason was that it got huge. but that problem is as simple as anything. it's just archiving. Looking back now, i tihnk that's something all these article discussions lack, archiving. Having a closer look, otaku said this place had something similar to task force, but i still not see any other than ask piros, but that's just not even a task force, that's for general discussion. ask piros is basically shown to have other discussions that could easily fall in there reespected articles. that's why i believe the format i said should be suited.XXXth form 18:46, March 26, 2010 (UTC) :I'm utterly confused by your constant use of the term "task force." Aside from that, I've stated multiple times that the main page's talk page specifically states that you can have general discussion there. And archiving was NOT the end-all solution to the problem. WE DID THIS. It helped, barely. Seriously, what we're doing now is better. You're the only complainer so far, and none of us can figure out why you're complaining.--OtakuD50 19:01, March 26, 2010 (UTC) a task force, a section completely dedicated to one section, such as publication, animation and games, like i said before. you only have one general discussion place. and i can't imagine archiving not working. it doesnt look like you tried to archive just by lookinga t haseo's page. XXXth form 19:06, March 26, 2010 (UTC) :Why the hell would we archive Haseo's page? It's an article. If you're talking about his talk page, that's nothing. It's serving its purpose, and rather than archive we could just delete discussions as necessary. A task force to me is a group of people designated to a single specific task. It makes no sense to me that you would call forum areas "task forces." We have multiple general discussion areas, you just don't see that, and I refuse to argue this point further. Rather than argue about the lack of places to discuss general things, how about you just go ahead and start general discussion in a place of your choosing and we'll decide if it belongs there or not? Maybe you'll be surprised. And it doesn't matter if you can't imagine archiving not working. The truth is, we did it. It worked to an extent. '''BUT WE FOUND A BETTER WAY.--OtakuD50 19:22, March 26, 2010 (UTC) You still havent asnwered my question to why archiving has failed. and yes i was talking about the talk page, i thought it was obvious. The problem is that you have multiple places to discuss all meeeting the same purpose, there's no one task force focused on one or two specific . and you even have places to talk about none wiki stuff. The whole point on archiving is to hold old conversations that have already been answered so if it has been brought up again, you can simply use the archives as answers. In wikipedia theres a archive bot that archives any discussion that hasnt been dicussed in over a number of days to weeks. you possibly assign someone to be a bot and they archive for you depending on the article and what number of days it needs to be waited for archive. I dont see a single flaw, and you havent mentioned one either. i do sense...well it looks like to mem that the system isnt meant for organization but for something else>XXXth form 19:42, March 26, 2010 (UTC) :You never ASKED why archiving failed, you just assumed it was the answer. Not just that, but no one ever said that archiving failed. It's just a method we use to clean up. At any rate, we don't archive that way due to the fact that this wiki isn't as active, so there is rarely a need to archive very often, and I don't archive things until the discussion has reached an end, otherwise they will end up being forgotten.--OtakuD50 20:12, March 26, 2010 (UTC) :that's the very reason why archives exist. so that they dont get forgotten, even if someone new comes in. you originally said you had to archive extensively, but now you say the wiki isn't as active in order to archive? Anyways, there really is no need for multiple places for general discussion, but there could/should be few task force, or not even task force, just discussion place for certain areas, not everything there is in .hack wiki.XXXth form 20:28, March 26, 2010 (UTC) ::I didn't say we had to archive extensively, it was merely said that that's what we did. And stop saying "task force."' It's a term that is MEANINGLESS on this wiki'. No need for multiple places for general discussion? Didn't you say that THERE WASN'T A PLACE FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION? Then you said that it wasn't where you wanted it to be? I think you've proven that this argument is all about what YOU want, not what works better for the .hack wiki community. What's so wrong about having options? What's wrong with the structure we have now? I'm sure there's an answer to those questions but any answers you have to provide aren't good enough, so I'm sorry, but just quit. You honestly haven't contributed to this wiki much, if at all, and if you keep arguing, I'll be perfectly content to have Kula do what he does best.--OtakuD50 20:39, March 26, 2010 (UTC) ::did i?hmm....and i can see from the way your speaking, you dont want to listen, even if it's possible. you got tired, so you dont even want to consider this. but seriosuly, your getting angry, and then guess what happens, you block me just because i proposed something . i guess it's natural seeing mods or admins would get mad if you question there ways. but. did i even once insult you? maybe indirectly at first, but other than that, this last comment, you werent even trying. there really isn't a real dedicated place for discussion, and that comment was before you told me of all this. Make these places dedicated, but at the same time, dont make them all spread out. the main page for overall discussions is perfectly fine. but you derived so much about stuff like BBS gates and ask piros. those arent even what i was talking about. And trust me, i am thinking of whats best for the wiki. whatever you claim that i am, it could work the other way around.XXXth form 20:54, March 26, 2010 (UTC) ::the one and only thing i would want that could be done, just because of me and no other person, is the naming of these places, hard to understand, what does BBS mean? bulletin board and the rest i dont know. and ask piros, sounds very fan-like. but other than that, the rest i have for the intentions of veryone else. you can clearly see there are specific discussions despite it being "general" so that's why i proposed my method. you also didnt say if my method was wrong.XXXth form 20:59, March 26, 2010 (UTC) :::What you don't understand is that I'm normally the open-minded, level-headed "defuser" on this wiki. It takes a LOT to really get me going, and it should tell you how much you've frustrated me. As for the forum names, we voted on them, and I added explainers on the forum index about what those forums are about. And no, it wouldn't work the other way around because I have consensus on my side. I wouldn't block you just because you propose something that I disagree with, it's because you continually propose something no one agrees with and you continue on further explaining why it would be better when it's already agreed upon that we won't go on with it. Furthermore, your argument has little consistency. "Make these places dedicated, but at the same time, dont make them all spread out" What the hell does this even mean? If you're arguing that they should all be united under one forum, that just makes certain discussions harder to find. The main page? That CAN BE USED FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION. I've said this multiple times. Are you preferring to say that NO OTHER PLACE SHOULD BE USED FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION? Forget that, that was the old way. Welcome to the present. Don't like it? I don't see why you should care, it's not like it's particularly important.--OtakuD50 21:54, March 26, 2010 (UTC) :::As I said before, it's fucking hilarious how this idiot is complaining that we're close-minded and ignoring his argument, when he's doing the exact same thing to ours. BTW, Otaku really is the last person to piss off in the Wiki. If you managed to piss him off, then you really are an idiot. Kulaguy 22:57, March 26, 2010 (UTC) :::Oh god, Kula, please just ban this kid. I can't take the stupidity. --cruncher3019 23:01, March 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::Really? I would think you've encountered worse since you still hang out on the official forums. ::::Also, I would like to chime in that the use of a task force is idiotic for the community size we have. I know what you're talking about. Have a certain group of people work on a certain aspect of the Wiki. That's pointless here. There are, like what? About a dozen active contributors here? Our stance on this has always been, work on the page you want to improve. This is why I trust that the Aura pages will be amazing because RPG will do what it takes to keep it that way. Same with the Natsume pages and Otaku. And Terajima and me of course. This is also why there are tons of pages on cleanup. Why? There aren't enough people who want to fix those pages. Personally, I would do it myself, but I do not have the knowledge or time to fix them. You really expect us to divide our dozen strong contributors and tell them to work on a certain category of pages? That really won't accomplish much. Since we would be making them do it, there would really be no motivation to actually do so. The only good motivation for a wiki of our size is to work on the articles that each person would like to see improved. There's no stronger motivation than character devotion. Kulaguy 23:09, March 26, 2010 (UTC) Believe it or not, we have people that will at least attemp to have an argument. But you're right, he is much like many members, where he ignores EVERYTHING you say and continues on. --cruncher3019 02:00, March 27, 2010 (UTC) Sorry, my brother quit this wikia and gave it to me since i'm much a bigger fan. this is some heavy reading. some things i agree but really the way he presented it better. And what i think my brother meant with the whole task force is, just a section for discussion for those. in wikipedia, we dont make members exclusive to one group, or not able to join. that's all i want to say. since my brother made things wild here, i hope you get use to his younger sister instead. I apologize for any disputions and hopefully, you get to see me differently. I originally wanted a new name but i kind of like XXXth form as a name, so i didnt request new name change. again sorry.XXXth form 19:05, March 29, 2010 (UTC)